Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Be Notified When A New Article Is Posted

KIEV, Ukraine -- Channel 5 and TVi remain the strongholds of journalistic integrity amid growing accusations of censorship by government and media owners.

For Ukrainians who want independent and fair TV news coverage, experts say the choices have dwindled to two options: Channel 5 and TVi.

Those are the only remaining channels that Natalia Ligacheva, chief editor of Kyiv-based Telekritika media watchdog, considers as unbiased.

But even their futures as honest purveyors of information are uncertain.

TVi’s owner, exiled Russian businessman Konstantin Kagalovsky, claims his channel is being unfairly stripped of frequencies by the State Committee on Television and Radio.

As for Channel 5, speculation is spreading that its owner, millionaire businessman Petro Poroshenko, might sell out soon. Poroshenko could not be reached for comment.

So what about the rest?

One by one, they have fallen victim to the political interests of their owners, state censorship or old-fashioned journalistic self-censorship out of fear of running afoul of President Viktor Yanukovych’s administration.

“Certainly, the information airwaves have narrowed for the opposition. Censorship is re-emerging, and the opposition is not getting covered as much,” said Oleh Rybachuk, a civic activist who headed Viktor Yushchenko's presidential administration in 2005-2006.

“There are some similarities to what Vladimir Putin did in Russia when he started his seizure of power by first muzzling criticism in the media,” Rybachuk said.

Yanukovych’s administration denies ordering censorship of news coverage, refuting accusations from a growing number of television journalists.

But if the charges of press-muzzling are true, Ukraine’s citizens may be transported back to the decade-long informational black hole of ex-President Leonid Kuchma's era.

In those pre-2004 Orange Revolution days, before Yushchenko came to power, citizens were bombarded daily with Soviet-style propaganda from leading television news programs, mostly controlled by billionaire oligarchs.

Those tycoons, who got wealthy under the insider privatizations orchestrated by the Kuchma administration, backed Yanukovych for president in 2004. And they lost big.

But now their guy is president while many of the wealthiest – Rinat Akhmetov, Viktor Pinchuk and Igor Kolomoisky among them – still have control of most news media outlets.

“Now none of the major TV channels’ owners are in opposition to authorities,” Telekritika’s Ligacheva said. “Therefore, if Poroshenko sells Channel 5, and we hear he has been receiving offers, then the opposition will have no channel of its own.”

Journalists at the nation’s second most watched television channel, 1+1, threatened on May 6 to go on strike if censorship does not stop. A day later, colleagues at the STB television channel joined them in solidarity, issuing a statement of their own with demands for censorship to stop.

Early warning signs came months ago, when Ukraine’s State Security Service -- a spy agency that traces its roots to the Soviet KGB and is better known by its SBU acronym -- led an investigation aimed at cancelling frequencies recently issued to TVi.

The channel’s journalists and management accused SBU chief Valery Khoroshkovsky of foul play, an allegation that he denies. Khororshkovsky’s involvement would pose a clear conflict of interest, since he co-owns the nation’s largest TV group, Inter.

TVi’s journalists claim that their channel is under pressure as one of the few remaining outlets that prevent pro-Yanukovych forces from monopolizing all television media in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Igor Kolomoisky, the billionaire who owns 1+1 channel, denied that his channel has censored reports or been pressured by Yanukovych’s administration. Instead, he pointed the blame at opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister.

Kolomoisky told the Financial Times newspaper that individuals close to Tymoshenko had recently offered to continue paying for positive coverage – an offer he claims to have rejected.

But media watchdogs say coverage on his channels is also slanted in favor of Yanukovych’s administration.

“The situation with freedom of speech at STB is not as bad as on other channels,” said Viktoriya Siumar, head of the International Media Institute in Ukraine, a non-profit organization.

“According to our monitoring, there is much more political bias at the ICTV and Inter channels. Therefore, we expect more TV reporters raising censorship concerns on their channels. And if more journalists voice and resist any censorship attempts, it will be harder for the authorities to curb media freedom.”

Speaking to journalists on May 12, Jose Manuel Pinto Texeria, the representative of the European Union in Ukraine, criticized Ukrainian authorities for not breaking up the monopolistic grip of oligarchs over television media.

“We are receiving reports about restrictions of press freedom in Ukraine, but unfortunately, we don’t have factual evidence. For me, it has been very unfortunate to see that Ukraine has in the last years not upheld its obligation to set up a public television channel … which could provide equal access,” he said.

Hanna Herman, deputy head of the president’s administration, said a new law establishing a public TV channel is in the works now, but no details are available yet. However, she hopes for its speedy approval by parliament. “With God’s help, we’ll have it approved by September,” she said on May 11.

Journalists at 1+1 and STB, however, say that – since Yanukovych’s Feb. 25 inauguration – station management started restricting their coverage of numerous hot-button topics.

Those included the controversial role of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army during World War II, when the nationalists were accused of Nazi collaborations. Other topics suddenly taboo were the allegedly pro-Russian positions of Education Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk and the Holodomor famine, which claimed the lives of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-1933.

Journalists also said channel management prohibited them from doing stories about high officials’ luxurious mansions and lifestyles, and of reporting on how Yanukovych’s Party of Regions supporters were being paid for their presence at recent demonstrations.

To back up their claims, the 1+1 reporters cited specific instances of censorship: a story on the approval of the new cabinet was stripped of all criticism, as was a story on the recent agreement to keep the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol until at least 2042.

Less clear is where the alleged censorship orders are coming from.

Some say they are coming from the president’s team.

Others say the regulatory State Committee on Television and Radio is the source.

Two weeks before the May 9 Victory Day celebration, a journalist with Lviv’s state-run television station received a so-called roznaryadka, a document that spelled out how journalists should cover the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II.

“It has already begun,” said Sofia Sadina, whose political talk show airs live on Tuesday evenings. “They are already saying what can and cannot run. These are not the ‘temnyky’ of Kuchma’s days, but they are very large requests,” she said, referring to the formal written instructions from the ex-president’s administration detailing how news should be covered.

Yuriy Plaksiuk, head of the State Committee on Television and Radio, denied the charges. “There was a presidential decree and a cabinet’s decision on covering the official events connected to the celebration of the Victory Day, but they did not give any recommendation on how to cover, neither were there any forbidden topics. And the committee, generally, does not issue instructions for state TV companies on how to cover the news,” Plaksiuk said.

Still others think that the channel’s millionaire and billionaire owners are simply seeking to remain in the administration’s good graces by curtailing criticism and hard-hitting investigations that exposes corruption and helps Ukrainians hold their public officials accountable.

Much is at stake, since most Ukrainians get their information from television news. Thus far, newspapers and investigative online outlets seem immune from pressure. Zerkalo Nedeli and Ukrayinska Pravda are two examples of institutions known for hard-hitting investigative journalism.

“We now have to figure out how this pressure on the media works,” Ligacheva said. “Some of the messages apparently are coming from the presidential administration. In other cases, we see self-censorship by the TV channel owners.”

Some journalists, such as Lviv’s Sadina, say they are simply ignoring instructions to slant their coverage. “Journalists are saying no,” she said. ”Journalists are now fighting back.”

But Ihor Pochinok, editor and co-owner of the country’s largest Ukrainian-language newspaper, Lviv-based Expres, said he expects more conflicts ahead.

“Relations with this government will only get worse,” Pochinok said. Once Yanukovych’s appointments are in place in the regions, “then close to the fall, we’ll see serious conflicts. There will be attempts to stop certain press freedoms.”

Journalists and Lviv university students held a two-hour warning strike on May 11 to protest clampdowns on the media. They also wanted to keep pressure on the president to remove the much disliked education minister, Dmytro Tabachnyk, from his post.

“If you listen to the radio, for instance, there is no analysis of the events leading to Victory Day, there is no critical assessment,” said Olha Salo, one of the strike organizers. “Right now, we are not protesting. We are giving a warning of what can come.”

Comments

News media more representative of peoples conscience than government.___________________________________

FREEDOM OF A MEDIA--NON CONTROLLEDAND TAINTED BY A GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS THE SIGN OF A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY AND THE LACK OF IT IS THE SIGN OF AN AILINGDEMOCRACY.

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN UKRAINE NOW IS WHAT I WAS AFRAID WOULD START TO HAPPEN AND I CAN HONESTLY SAY THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE UKRAINE MEDIA WILL PAY A SERIOUS PRICE.

THAT IS A GUARANTEE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE HAVE HAD ALMOST NINETEEN YEARS OF FREEDOM FROM THE CLOAK OF OLD SOVIETUNION DAYS AND I TRULY BELIEVETHEY WILL FIGHT TO DEATH TO PRERSERVE THIS PRECIOUS FREEDOM.

WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY.

THE REASON--CONTROLED MEDIA ISCONTROLLING THE FREEDOM OF RIGHTFUL INFORMATION BEING REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC--THE UKRAINE PEOPLE.IT IS THEIR CONSCIENCE AND ITIS THEIR FREEDOM.HERE IN THE UNITED STATES IT IS KNOWN AS THE PEOPLES FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

FAMOUS STATESMAN,THOMAS JEFFERSONONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE U.S.CONSTITUTION SAID IF HE HAD A CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT WITHOUTMEDIA OR MEDIA WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HE WOULD CHOOSE THE LATTER BECAUSEFREEDOM OF MEDIA AND EXPRESSIONIS MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF A TRUE DEMOCRACY AND IS CLOSER TOWHAT THE PEOPLE FEEL AND THINK.IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR HEART AND SOUL.GOVERNMENTS GOVERN---DEMOCRACIES OF PEOPLE THINK AND EXPRESS AND EXCHANGE WITH ONE ANOTHER FOR A COMMON GOOD.

NOT ALWAYS SO WITH MOST GOVERNMENTS WORLDIWDE.IN UKRAINE EXISTS ONE OF THE MOST VIBRANT AND CREATIVE,DEDICATED GROUP OF JOURNALISTS I HAVE EVER KNOWN.

UKRAINE JOURNALISM ,IN DEPTH ANDINVESTIGATIVE REPORTING IS ABENCHMARK OF THE GREAT UKRAINE.

IT IS WITH TREMENDOUS PRIDE I SAY THIS AS I WAS BASED IN UKRAINE FOR A YEAR OR SO AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW AND WORK WITH SOME TREMENDOUS REPORTERS AND JOURNALISTS.ONE,IS ANDRY TSAPLIYENKO, WHO HAS BEEN VOTED THE TOP EUROPEAN JOURNALIST ABOUT NINE TIMES IN THE PAST ELEVEN YEARS AND WORKS FOR INTER TV NEWS.HIS WEEKLY SHOW SPETS COR-SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT IS PRODUCED AND REPORTED TO PERFECTION BUT AFTER TRAVELING TO WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS TO COVER WHAT HE REPORTS-FIRST HAND.HE REPORTS REVEALING FACTTHAT UKRAINE AND OTHER PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW.

THERE ARE THE TRULY DEDICATED REPORTERS AND EDITORS OFKYIV POST AND KYIV WEEKLY AND LET US NOT FORGET THE EDITORAND PUBLISHER OF THE KIEV NEWSBLOG WHICH HAS OFFEREDNEWS CONTENT WORLDWIDE FOR PEOPLE OF UKRAINE AND THEU.S. AND EXPATRIOTS TO BEINFORMED.HAVING STARTED AS A REPORTERAT 12 WHEN I FORMED MY OWN NEWSPAPER AND HAVING WORKED IN RADIO-TV-PRINT AND EVEN INTERNET I HAVE ALWAYS PROUDLY REPORTED FACTS PEOPLEMUST KNOW TO BE FREE, TO HAVETHE DESIRES OF THEIR CONSCIENCEMET AND THEIR RIGHTS PROTECTED.

EVEN HERE IN THE U.S. NOW THECURRENT ADMINISTRATION HASDONE SOME THINGS TO CURTAILREAL TRUTH AND FACTS FROMBEING REVEALED.UKRAINE MEDIA IS THE BEST ANDUKRAINE PEOPLE ARE FREEDOMFIGHTERS.MY HEART GOES OUT TO UKRAINEPEOPLE AND ITS HONORABLENEWS MEDIA AND IF THECURRENT GOVERNMENT ISATTEMPTING TO CONTROL THEMEDIA IT WILL BE THE BIGGEST MISTAKE IT COULD EVER MAKE.RUSSIAN PEOPLE WILL EVEN JOINUKRAINE TO PROTECT THISPRECIOUSS LIBERTY.I WISH I WERE THERE NOW TO HELP.LONG LIVE FREEDOM OF UKRAINEJOURNALISM FOR THE PEOPLE.WES RODGERSPATRIOTSTV.COM newsman007west-patriot@msn.com

THE FOURTH ESTATE-THE NEWS MEDIAHAS AN INHERENT OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY INFORM THE PEOPLE OF ITSCOMMUNITY AND COUNTRY WHEN IT PERTAINS TO THEIR BASIC AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS.

AND,GOVERNMENT MUST RESPECT THAT OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES.

THE NEWS MEDIA IS FOR THE PEOPLE.

THE NEWS MEDIA WAS FIRST GIVENTHE NAME FOURTH ESTATE DURING A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE IN THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1787WHEN IT WAS VIBRANTLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF OTHER PARLIAMENT MEMBERS THAT THE NEWS MEDIA OR PRESS HAD AN INHERENT OBLIGATION TO REPORT RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT MATTERS OF STATE OPENLY TO THE PEOPLE.

THE GOVERNMEENT IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND IT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT ALTHOUGH THEY MUST ABIDE BY HONORABLE LAWS, STATUTESPASSED BY PARLIAMENT OR CONGRESSWHICH HELP TO MAINTAIN CIVILITY AND SUPPORT THE OVERALL GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM AND ALL SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF THE COUNTRY.

UKRAINE NEWS MEDIA HAS NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS TO THE EXTENT THAT ITSCOVERAGE OF PUBLIC DOMAIN EVENTS MUST BE CURTAILED,ALTERED OR CONTROLLED.

IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SHOWN AT TIMES THAT THE GOVERNMENT HASTRIED TO CONTROL CERTAIN FACTS AND INFORMATION THE MEDIA TRIED TO BRING FORTH IN THE PUBLIC DOMAINSO THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE ARE PROPELY INMFORMED.

ANY CURTAILMENT WILL ALSO HURT UKRAINE FROM OUTSIDE OR FOREIGN MEDIA ASSIGNED TO COVER IMPORTANT MATTERS OF STATE AND HOW THE GOVERNMENT IN PARTICULAR CONDUCTS ITS ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THEUKRAINE GOVERNMENT.AND, NEGATIVE COVERAGE FAIRLY REPORTED COULD HURT MATTERS OF ECONOMY, MILITARY,NATIONAL SECURITY OR JUST THE OVERALL INTEGRITY OF UKRAINE.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE BBC--DW TV OUT OF GERMANY--AND OTHERSSUCH AS THE NEW YORK TIMES--CNNAND MANY OTHER MAJOR AND INDEPENDENT NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WILL SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPORT THE FACTS STRAIGHT ANDTO THE POINT.

HOWEVER,THE NEWS MEDIA MUST NOT ABUSE ITS RIGHTS SUCH AS DISCLOSING OPENLY CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH COULD ENDANGER NATIONAL SECURITY.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE INTENT OR CASE IN UKRAINE BUT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG, THE TAXPAYING SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF UKRAINE HAVE THE RIGHT TOKNOW ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF THEIRELECTED OFFICIALS.

HOPEFULLY THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINEAND EVEN RUSSIA AND SOME OTHER NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES WILL SEE FIT TO ABIDE BY FACTUAL AND HONORABLE DISSEMENATION OF RELEVANT FACTS TO THE PUBLIC ANDFOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

ONCE AGAIN,THE GOVERNMENT MUST USE GOOD JUDGEMENT HERE AND REALIZEIN THE END IT WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO ITS OWN PEOPLE AND FOREIGN MEDIA SOURCES AS WELL AS DOMESTIC.

FOR THE SAKE OF A FREE NEWS MEDIA IT IS HOPED THAT UKRAINE GOVERNMENT WILL ACT ACCORDINGLY AS THE ENTIRE WORLD IS WATCHING.AS IT WAS ONCE SAID BY A GREAT STATESMAN DURING THE FOUNDING OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RELEVANCE TO A FREE MEDIA..PATRICK HJENRY SAID..AS FOR ME GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.